DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG PUB 20190179028 (hereinafter Pacala).
Regarding Claim 1, Pacala discloses a LiDAR anti-interference method applied to a LiDAR, wherein the LiDAR comprises a laser emission array (410) and a laser receiving array (420) , and the method comprises:
determining at least two laser emission units (emitter 410(1) & 410(9) as shown in FIG. 4B) to be turned on in a measurement period (FIG. 4B shows concurrent illumination of two laser beams from emitters 410(1) & 410(9)), wherein the at least two laser emission units to be turned on are in different laser emission groups (FIG. 4B shows emitters 410(1) & 410(9) in different columns), and the at least two laser emission units to be turned on satisfy a physical condition of no optical crosstalk (FIG. 4B shows how return beams are targeted to return to specific sensors, 420(1) and 420(9) respectively to avoid issues of optical crosstalk); and
controlling the at least two laser emission units (410(1) & 410(9)) to emit laser beams based on a preset rule, and controlling respectively corresponding laser receiving units (420(1) & 420(9)) of the at least two laser emission units to receive echo beams, to detect a target object ([0103] describes how ranging system controller 350 operates via pre-programmed instructions, i.e. preset rules, to control the LIDAR system).
Regarding Claim 2, Pacala discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the at least two laser emission units to emit laser beams based on the preset rule comprises:
controlling the at least two laser emission units to emit the laser beams at intervals of a preset number of physical channels; or
controlling the at least two laser emission units to emit the laser beams at time intervals based on an actual ranging need ([0109] describes how the emission units are controlled to emit light at fixed angular and therefore time intervals to perform range measurements and therefore meet an actual ranging need).
Regarding Claim 3, Pacala discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
setting emission code value sets for the at least two laser emission units based on a preset emission encoding rule ([0099] describes applying pulse coding techniques, e.g. Barker codes to the emitted lasers); and
ensuring that the emission code value sets of the at least two laser emission units satisfy a preset cross-correlation condition ([0102] goes on to discuss how the processor can be configured to applied matched filtering to recover LIDAR information, which is a known as a direct form of code-division cross-correlation processing).
Regarding Claim 4, Pacala discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein controlling respectively the corresponding laser receiving units of the at least two laser emission units to receive the echo beams comprises:
controlling the respectively corresponding laser receiving units of the at least two laser emission units to receive the echo beams at intervals of a preset number of physical channels ([0103] describes how ranging system controller 350 operates to control the LIDAR system, which as shown in FIG. 4B includes multiple physical channels).
Regarding Claim 5, Pacala discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein after controlling respectively the corresponding laser receiving units of the at least two laser emission units to receive the echo beams, the method further comprises:
performing first filtering or second filtering on obtained original point cloud data to obtain interference-free point cloud data ([0102] describes performing matched filtering following collection of the signals, which would remove interference from received optical signals).
Regarding Claim 7, Pacala discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the second filtering comprises:
for each to-be-detected point in the original point cloud data, obtaining at least two points in a preset direction by using the to-be-detected point as a center in the original point cloud data;
fitting the at least two points and the to-be-detected point; and
based on a fitting result, determining whether the to-be-detected point is valid,
wherein based on the fitting result, determining whether the to-be-detected point is valid comprises:
if the fitting result indicates that the at least two points and the to-be-detected point can be fitted into a straight line, determining that the to-be-detected point is valid ([0168] teaches the use of interpolation as an advanced filtering process to be applied for removing validity of points and as a filtering process it would be applied to each of the points in the point cloud).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claims 9 and 16, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claims 10 and 17, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claims 11 and 18, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG PUB 20190179028 (hereinafter Pacala) in view of US PG PUB 20210048515 (hereinafter Zhou)
Regarding Claim 6, Pacala discloses the method according to claim 5 and while Pacala does teach applying filtering processes it fails to specifically teach the particulars of the claimed first filtering process.
However, Zhou teaches for each to-be-detected point in the original point cloud data, based on a preset neighborhood size determining a to-be-detected neighborhood centered on the to-be-detected point (see FIG. 3 of Zhou and its neighborhood of 9 points. Examiner was not able to find any discussion in the instant application describing a technique for selection of a preset neighborhood size);
calculating a difference between a ranging value (Zhou uses the term continuity parameter instead of ranging value) of each point in the to-be-detected neighborhood other than the to-be-detected point and a ranging value of the to-be-detected point ([0072] of Zhou describes how the distances between adjacent points of a LIDAR cloud should be relatively tiny); and
based on the difference, determining whether the to-be-detected point is valid ([0072] of Zhou also describes the use of a threshold, such as 1 meter variation between adjacent points, to identify poorer continuity in order to identify that point as a noise point. [0073] also describes increasing the noise threshold amount based on a distance between the lidar system and the object detection).
Regarding Claims 13 and 20, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights